Atwood took much of the heat online, as people sent a barrage of angry tweets her way. Atwood fired back with counter-tweets, and today issued her own statement on the matter in a letter published by The Walrus and on her Twitter account. She defends signing the letter, stating “the UBC process was flawed and failed both sides, and the rest of my position is that the model of the Salem Witchcraft Trials is not a good one. (Those accused would almost certainly be found guilty because of the way the rules of evidence were set up, and if you objected to the proceedings you would be accused yourself.)”

Atwood goes on to say “To take the position that the members of a group called ‘women’ are always right and never lie — demonstrably not true — and that members of a group called ‘accused men’ are always guilty — Steven Truscott, anyone? — would do a great disservice to accusing women and abuse survivors, since it discredits any accusations immediately.”

Many have criticized the open letter as the CanLit establishment closing ranks around one of their own, but a UBC creative writing student has also added her name to the effort. On Friday, another letter was added to the page by “Maureen Bayless, UBC student.” Bayless says she is grateful to other writers associated with UBC who signed the letter, stating “I feel a little safer as a writer.”

Bayless says she is a rape survivor and that she supports women, but that she supports the independent investigation because “UBC’s treatment of the women who made complaints against Steven Galloway was a case study in what not to do.”

Bayless adds that her support has come at personal cost, as she was “instantly condemned” and “Friends who are writers have ended their real-life friendships with me.”

On Twitter, other people continued to use the #canlit hashtag to make their own statements about the open letter, with many continuing to condemn it on blog and social media posts. Julie S. Lalonde, who won a Governor General’s Award for her contribution to the goal of equality for women and girls in Canada, wrote her own letter to Atwood, which was shared by others. She states much of her activism was inspired by Atwood but she is still critical of Atwood’s decision to sign the letter.

“You made a choice to not only sign onto a deeply, deeply problematic letter that prioritized a broken system over broken people, you then chose to double down and write an Op/Ed, positioning yourself as some brave feminist gone rogue,” she says in the letter.

The open letter signed by the writers noted the university’s faculty association is grieving Galloway’s dismissal and has stated the investigation found all the allegations against Galloway unsubstantiated except for one, and it was not the most serious one.

Postmedia asked the faculty association for comment on the open letter but received no response other than that the inquiry had been forwarded to the faculty association’s president.

Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

The full text of Margaret Atwood’s statement:

I suggest that interested members of the press should contact Joseph Boyden, the UBC Creative Writing Department, all the writers therein who quit or who were let go because they objected to the process, Madeleine Thien (who asked that her name be removed from all UBC websites), the University of British Columbia, and whoever it was at that university who got Galloway thrown into a mental institution in the United States.

My position is that the UBC process was flawed and failed both sides, and the rest of my position is that the model of the Salem Witchcraft Trials is not a good one. (Those accused would almost certainly be found guilty because of the way the rules of evidence were set up, and if you objected to the proceedings you would be accused yourself.) Obviously the university was trying to shield students from something — we are still not clear as to what, exactly, and if it’s a matter of rape then it should be a matter of jail — but their methods appear to have resulted in a big foggy mess.

Did the university actually believe the claims — which those on the outside still don’t know much about — or was it scrambling around to protect itself, or both? Is it an endorsement of rape culture or a silencing of anyone to support the view that the university should take a good hard look at the way it handled this? Does it need a clear code of conduct that everyone teaching there should adhere to? (Don’t socialize and drink with students, for beginners? No bets that involve slapping?)

To take the position that the members of a group called “women” are always right and never lie — demonstrably not true — and that members of a group called “accused men” are always guilty — Steven Truscott, anyone? — would do a great disservice to accusing women and abuse survivors, since it discredits any accusations immediately. Those accusing Joseph Boyden, Madeleine Thien, and all the other signatories of the letter in question, of rape culture and intimidation of young people because they have objected to a university’s flawed and high-handed process should give some thought to the consequences. And they should note that the university’s flawed process, if not amended, could well — in future — be applied to them.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.